I am only moderately skeptical of the global warming science. It certainly seems plausible that a significant increase in the second most important greenhouse gas could cause some global warming.

On the other hand, the liberals who are most in support of the general hysteria surrounding the debate are generally scientifically ignorant if not downright luddites.

Science doesn't end with the atmosphere; but we have most of the self-congratulatory warming believers unwilling to consider nuclear power, the only available large scale alternative to fossil fuels. They rely primarily on fear and notably not on the statistical evidence in favor of nuclear. I favor nuclear because it is clean. If I also believed the world was about to end because of coal combustion, I would be even more in favor of nuclear. Any liberal who experiences genuine fear of global warming, and is unable to process the fact that nuclear power is less dangerous than the destruction of the human race is simply a phony. In other words, they believe in global warming for the same reasons they believe that corporations, vouchers, conservatives, processed foods, soft drinks, guns, dams and unwanted fetuses are nuisances.

It's absolutely AMAZING how the first post on ANY climate change topic we post on the Ferret over the years always comes from someone snarkily dismissing those 'liberals' and rubbishing climate change arguments.

It's almost as if someone was paying these people to keep watch on the keywords on the net so they can jump in instantly (these responses are always really fast) and make sure the Internet knows that climate change is totally bogus.

Amazing! Anyway for anyone who wants to read REAL climate science data, I strongly suggest you ignore these types of comments and head over to the Real Climate site which is populated by real climate scientists and not blowhards or shills. You'll find it at http://www.realclimate.org/ . Cheers.

Roadrunnermike

Is John an A#$ Hole,, How is Nuclear clean, if Japan is completly ruined by radioactive fallout, and no one will ever be able to live a normal life there again,,!

Burmashave

Yup, Luddites. Only a group of Luddites would compose a torturous diagram of interested parties as a way to explain away scientific opposition to their thoeries.

Real Climate Scientists. That’s a joke, right? The people who cannot predict the weather tomorrow with more accuracy than the Old Farmers’ Almanac? Do you also believe in astrology? You know, Ptolemy had a pretty good model going on about planetary motion. If you look at it, it did a fair job of predicting eclipses and whatnot.

Climate science is the echo chamber. No questions allowed. The science is settled. We have consensus. The difference between how “deniers” are treated by “real climate” and how Galileo was treated by the hidebound religion of his day is a very nice parallel.

As far as shills go, where do “the real men of climate science” get their money? Oh, that’s right. From the government — which is always seeking excuses to grow itself and regulate some more. And take some more of your freedom. Nice little slave. Lick your masters’ hands.

OhPlease

You do realize that you are comparing Meteorology with Climate Change, right?

You know the difference between the two, right? You might as well be judging Macroeconomic theory, based on the ‘proof’ of a purchase made at 7-11.

And it is simply astounding that you would use Galileo as the example of your ‘repression’. You deniers try to cloak yourselves in a robe of Science, in order to give appearance of credibility. The denier side has almost zero evidence. The change side has a lot. This alone reverses you analogy of Galileo, as he had science and evidence, while the church had nothing but dogma (and the bible).

If you dont believe in Climate Change, come right out and say so. Produce some evidence – This is the internet, it isnt like you CANT get something on a website. Get a good peer-reviewed article, and you’ll have a ton of hits, as you’ll have the first credible scholarly article that gives a body-blow to human-caused Global climate Change.

But dont try to claim an ‘echo chamber’. Scientists are the first to say that the work must be peer-reviewed and that conclusions must stand up to criticism (and therefore, face revision). Come up with evidence.

OTW, Put your money where your mouth is.

But stop trying to get sympathy by whining on about repression. After all, the denier side gets huge amounts of free money from climate change polluting corporations and ‘think tanks’ (something which you, naturally, didnt mention), with far fewer strings attached, or rigorous scientific requirements. Coming up with proof ought to be easy.

So where is it?

Oh, the irony of talking about serving a master.. The denier never EVER manages to focus that truth lens at himself.